*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
How rare does something have to be to be considered a non concern? You realize that these issues become additive? It's just one more issue I need to worry about when trying to use a product. You're still subject to the other possibilities of failure and you're now reliant on one more service to access your content. So whatever frustrations you've had this gen will be increased by some non zero amount for a net benefit of what?
I have a spare controller and spare batteries because the controller going out is not acceptable to me. I can use a generator or a battery backup if I'm concerned about power outages. What option do I have to insure that MS validation services or xbox live or whatever will be available when I want to play my game?
Certainly the loss of purchased content is the bigger issue, but that doesn't mean that making your content reliant on ancillary services, when it isn't necessary, is acceptable.
In worse somehow, creating almost unprecedented intensives for the hackers to take the system security down, with awful consequences, etc.
But sadly it is not without precedents on more serious matter, who loan money to subprimes subscribers so they have a new cars, what with the raise with synthetic financial products (CF nothing less than a Bank of England recent statement), etc.
Well playing on words, the 360 can be always on and always online if the user choose to do so, so my laptop and so on.
That is clearly not we are discussing here.
I checked and none of the quotes you gave are glorious for a guy in his position.
He was asked on twitter:
Well, it is not an article in the verge, it is a comment in twitter. But come on, do you really think that the verge don't know how the "always connected" thing works? the leaked things like internet explorer on Xbox 360 or Xbox music, and they gave details about smartglass.
Last edited by a moderator:
My net goes down an average of once a week, sometimes more than once a day. Often, it'll slow down for no discernible reason as well.
Always Must Be On DRM is a no-go in my house for this reason and this reason alone. Making your DRM rely on something being up 100% of the time is idiotic for that reason. In addition, all this discussion misses one thing: what if the servers you're connecting to are down? I haven't seen mention of it in these posts before and after it was merged into the old thread.
We saw it with the Assassin's Creed games and other games using Ubi's piece of crap DRM, we saw it with Sim City, we saw it with Diablo 3, and we'll see it in the future.
Always Must Be On DRM is a no-go in my house for this reason and this reason alone. Making your DRM rely on something being up 100% of the time is idiotic for that reason. In addition, all this discussion misses one thing: what if the servers you're connecting to are down? I haven't seen mention of it in these posts before and after it was merged into the old thread.
We saw it with the Assassin's Creed games and other games using Ubi's piece of crap DRM, we saw it with Sim City, we saw it with Diablo 3, and we'll see it in the future.
Still the particular quote I argued about is a nonsense, imo he should do better even on twitter. Though I kind of guess what he meant, still.
As for the guy knowing something, I wonder, it seems some major editors did not know about the 8GB in the PS4.
To me it sounds more like in he can't bend him self to believe that MSFT would take such a "risk" and try to think about it in a manner where always on and always online are meaningless or mean less than what they do /bend words. I kind of understand his stance because I think that it is (if it happens) indeed a damned risky move and as a costumer I would pretty much discard the product or it needs to be awesome wrt to services, games, etc. but with the pay wall MSFT is set to put on the system capabilities anyway the odds are low that I would consider the system as a possible choice. But I'm not discussing my pov on the matter or my feel wrt that type of policies.
Overall that always online requirement could be a lot more critical (than a bump in memory amount) and as I said it comes with great risks. Say they let you play installed games without disk because of the security provided by an online check, if the system security is broken locally... it means that like for the ps3 you can download games for free straight on the system.
It could happen fast as IF MSFT choose that path they will be a target for the hacker community as a whole day one.
There is also the issue about how (badly most likely) such a decision is perceived by the intend targets as this thread and I guess hundred of thousand of posts on the matter on the web show that people are adverse to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh you shouldn't have Shifty.
But I didn't get anything for you. LOL
Thanks man!
Tommy McClain
Therein lies the rub. If it's down once a month for 24+ hours, people will be furious and rightly so. But if it's impossible to play your games twice in the five years you own a 720, will it really be that bad? Yes, it'll be aggravating at the time like anything going down or being a pain, but in the grand scheme of things, is yours or anyone else's purchase choice between 720 and PS4 going to come down "there might be two or three days I won't be able to play it in the coming years because the connection is down" over and above all the other reasons to buy a console?
If MS go with always online, they'll be targeting a specific demographic that doesn't include people without solid infrastructure. Whether that pays out for them or not, we'll only know after the fact. I'm sure they've crunched numbers and read up predictions and have crossed their fingers in equal measure.
I believe at least one developer does this.
I would actually be somewhat fine if there were a sunset provision for DRM and an "in case we go bankrupt" failsafe. I might wait 6 months to buy for any always-online products, but I might consider it once they have an actual product to sell and not just code they grudgingly allow me to use.
To my knowledge, most don't.
The next wave some seem to be saying is the new normal is a scheme where this becomes physically impossible, because things like saving and reloading are done best on a remote server.
I would argue this probably means sales lost to piracy aren't the only target.
That's a subjective, personal thing, and something MS have to try to ascertain as an average before making their choice. Certainly though, if they offer a proposition something like - £150 cheaper than PS4, better online experience, great services, cheaper games due to reduced piracy (you never know
) - being out of action for a couple of days over several years won't be reason for many to shun the box. I think in the total range of selection parameters, always online is the one that'll have least negative impact on potential buyers. It'll be marketed as a feature ("always connected, share your XBox experience with your friends") and most potential shoppers won't care.There is no paradox, it could just be a company taking a bad decision, it can also be that plenty of people whine about things but ultimately deal with it or do nothing about it (see Diablo 3 and Sim City 5), etc.
Did it make sense for Sony to launch the ps3 at 600$? To for example push for 8 SPUs because KK saw the " light" and the beauty in power of 2? etc.
Sony were close to a monopoly last gen and ended loosing billions this gen. There are many example of "stupid" decisions in many fields.
MSFT gave up on winphone 6 whereas they were the leader and in front of the raise of Blackberry/Nokia and came with a compliant solution years later.. Blackberry is no longer a threat and they are close to too late...
Edit
missunderstood your post. My bad.
Imo shit happens.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the history of these things is any guide, any significant high-profile release, glitch or maintenance period of the servers, periods of long ping to the server, running afoul of the ever-evolving TOS, having your account hacked or Microsoft thinking your account's been hacked, having a billing dispute/credit card theft, possibly a DNS problem with whatever DNS service the device is coded to use, a hiccup with the ISP, random problems with a campus/apartment complex/residential hookup, a glitchy NIC on your console, a screwy update, a glitchy or low-rent wireless setup, the Xbox 980 (edit: 1080) has come out, the original authentication protocol gets hacked, etc.
Then there's the possibility that this always-online component has a publisher or developer component, in which case I can set my calendar by the cycles of when your EA game goes offline.
Perhaps it will only require a few days out of five years, although some of those may be weeks or months of aggravation where I would have liked to play some games to blow off steam. I would have pirated games 0 times out of that.
There would have been millions of people posting in favor of always-online, but EA's servers were down.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah the patching to remove the drm would have to be done by Microsoft themselves, they should not rely on the company that made the game since sometimes they go bankrupt before the game is even released.
I guess we have to see what they have in mind. Back when I still had the 360 I did all my saves on the cloud anyways since I never wanted to risk losing them from a console hdd failure, but I don't see why that would make it impossible to eliminate an always on drm scheme at the 6 month mark. Likewise if pieces of content need to get downloaded, it's Microsoft that controls all the XBLive servers so as long as they are still around then there shouldn't be any issue, just like as long as Apple is around if you drop your phone in a lake you can still get a new one and re-download all your purchases from Apple's servers.
I think what's interesting from some of this conversation is that backward compatibility is far more important than people realize. Normally when you talk about backward compatibility the majority seem to say they don't care, they buy a new console to play the new games. But now with this always on drm talk all of a sudden everyone wants to play their games forever. That really tells me that BC should be an uber high priority going forwards because people want it, whether they realize it or not.
WIth BC the argument has always been you can play it on your old console (at least as long as TV's have analog inputs!). With games that can "die" that one is out of the question. With games that can literally disappear from the face of the earth forever, people woke up. I think there is a good reason, most gamers have a special game or games that meant more to them than the average shooter. Imagine never having that game again. And it's more than just Microsoft shutting down servers, it's anything from laws that change, to games that sell to few copies to be worth keeping up to sequels that needs to sell. It's one giant cluster frak to be honest.
I would say it's not technically impossible. We need only look at the EA/Maxis statements as to why they'll never do that to see why I wouldn't count on it.
The possibility of XBLive going offline is practically remote for the foreseeable future. It's not likely to replicate the experience of early buyers on the Zune marketplace. Though again, any stupid corporate decision and platform tweak, and only the consumer pays.
The protestations are somewhat muted by the likelihood of there being Xbox Slims and PS3s available for years into the next gen, and the prospect of our existing consoles still working.
Always online means consoles function when the party on the other end of the line, and all intermediary connectors, feels like it.
They probably wouldn't, but could, decide on 980 launch day to put an expiration date on the 720.
(edit: if my barely awake math didn't utterly fail me, it would be 1080 launch day)
Last edited by a moderator:
Bagel seed
Veteran
That's a subjective, personal thing, and something MS have to try to ascertain as an average before making their choice. Certainly though, if they offer a proposition something like - £150 cheaper than PS4, better online experience, great services, cheaper games due to reduced piracy (you never know
Just because something can be successfully foisted onto the mainstream doesn't mean it should be an accepted thing though.
However, assuming there's going to be a choice between systems with one that's always on vs not, that's great because at least we have a choice. I'll jump to whatever platform looks more appealing as a total package... I've no problem doing that. But you have to understand why fans of Xbox who want to stick with them and are against AO are concerned, and are speaking out. That's where the outcry comes from. Everyone else complaining about it doesn't want to see it come anywhere near their previously unfettered hobby for fear of it being accepted across the board.
I don't disagree, but that's a subject for the Ethics of Technology board. Within the scope of the Console fora, the moral compass is effectively consumers want everything free and businesses want as much money as they can get, and 'fairness' doesn't much enter into it.
So we can complain about our personal objections, sure, but have to appreciate that the deciding factor won't ever be what anyone feels about, and only ever how customers respond. If customers are unhappy and it leads to dropped sales - bad call. If customers are unhappy but it leads to increased revenue - woohoo, quids in!